CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 15-cv-4357 (PAC)
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 2017

Chavis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Cory Chavis, an Asset Protection Manager at a Walmart in Suffern, New York, sued Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, alleging religious discrimination and retaliation under Title VII. Chavis sought a religious accommodation to not work on Sundays due to her Sabbath observance. While initially requiring her to use vacation days, Walmart later granted her accommodation. Chavis subsequently claimed a hostile work environment and discriminatory denial of seventeen promotions. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment in part, dismissing claims of failure to accommodate and hostile work environment, as well as most promotion claims. However, it denied summary judgment on Chavis's retaliation claim and promotion claims for specific MAPM and ASM positions, finding genuine issues of material fact.

Religious DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentFailure to PromoteTitle VIIHostile Work EnvironmentSabbath AccommodationWalmartEmployment LawNew York Law
References
48
Case No. 10-CV-5255 (ERK)(LB)
Regular Panel Decision

Rosario v. Valentine Avenue Discount Store, Co.

Plaintiff Julian Rosario filed a collective action lawsuit against multiple discount stores and Raymond Srour, alleging unpaid overtime and minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The plaintiff sought conditional certification of the collective action, production of potential opt-in plaintiffs' information, and authorization to circulate a notice of pendency. The court, presided over by Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom, granted the plaintiff's motion. The decision was based on a 'modest factual showing' that employees across several stores were subject to a common policy of wage and hour violations, despite initial concerns about the scope of the class and the definition of similarly situated employees. The court outlined specific modifications for the notice of pendency, including defining the class as 'non-managerial employees who performed work related to the receipt, stocking, or sale of merchandise, or general maintenance/cleaning of the store,' and also addressed the content and dissemination of the notice, and the production of employee information.

FLSANew York Labor LawWage and Hour DisputeOvertime CompensationMinimum WageCollective ActionConditional CertificationEmployee RightsEmployer LiabilityRetail Industry
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ifill v. Saha Food Stores

Plaintiff Humphrey Ifill, an electrician, sustained severe burn injuries on January 17, 1994, while replacing a circuit breaker in an energized electrical panel at a supermarket owned by defendants Saha Food Stores, Pioneer Supermarkets, and 5610 Fifth Realty Corporation. He alleged that the store manager and owner refused his requests to de-energize the circuit, thereby forcing him to work under unsafe conditions. Ifill filed an action against the defendants, citing violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6), and common-law negligence. During the proceedings, the plaintiff voluntarily withdrew his Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. The court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment regarding the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, concluding that there was a triable issue of fact concerning the defendants' control over the plaintiff's work methods.

Electrician InjuryWorkplace AccidentSummary Judgment MotionLabor LawCommon-Law NegligenceSafe Place to WorkSupervisory ControlEnergized EquipmentBurn InjuriesComparative Negligence
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Planning Board

Petitioner Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. applied for a conditional use permit and site plan approval in the Town of North Elba for a retail store. Respondent, the Planning Board, denied the application, citing adverse visual impact, effects on community character, and non-compliance with the Town Land Use Code after a SEQRA review and public hearing. Wal-Mart challenged this denial as arbitrary, capricious, and lacking substantial evidence, also alleging Open Meetings Law violations. The Supreme Court transferred the proceeding to the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division retained jurisdiction, applying a rationality standard, and ultimately confirmed the Planning Board's determination, dismissing Wal-Mart's petition.

Conditional Use PermitSite Plan ApprovalState Environmental Quality Review ActPlanning BoardJudicial ReviewRationality StandardAesthetic ImpactCommunity CharacterTown Land Use CodeOpen Meetings Law
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Angelora v. Kent Stores, Inc.

The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's amended complaint against Kent Stores, Inc. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the second cause of action in the plaintiff's amended complaint against Louis Marcus. The basis for these dismissals was the plaintiff's failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The decision included an award of ten dollars in costs and disbursements.

Amended ComplaintDismissalSufficiency of FactsCause of ActionAppellate ReviewCosts and DisbursementsConcurring JusticesCivil Procedure
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re United Department Stores, Inc.

The debtors, including United Department Stores, Inc. and others, sought to reclassify withdrawal liability claims from the Amalgamated Insurance Fund. These claims, arising from collective bargaining agreements for multiemployer pension contributions, were initially filed as administrative priority expenses. The Fund argued that the liability, triggered post-petition, should retain its priority status as a necessary cost for preserving the estates. However, the Court determined that withdrawal liability, based on pre-petition factors and not directly compensating employees for post-petition services or contributing to the estate's preservation, did not meet the criteria for administrative expenses under the Bankruptcy Code. Consequently, the Debtors' motions were granted, reclassifying the Fund's claims as general unsecured claims.

BankruptcyWithdrawal LiabilityMultiemployer Pension PlanAdministrative ClaimsUnsecured ClaimsEmployee BenefitsERISAMPPAAChapter 11Chapter 7
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Monell v. Scooter Store, Ltd.

The plaintiff, a 93-year-old woman with limited mobility, commenced an action against The Scooter Store Ltd. and Pride Mobility Products Corporation after her three-wheeled Go-Go Ultra X Scooter allegedly tipped over due to a design defect and inadequate warnings. She claimed negligence, strict tort liability, and breach of warranties. The defendants sought to exclude the plaintiff's expert witness and moved for summary judgment. The court denied the motion to exclude the expert, finding his testimony sufficiently reliable. It also denied summary judgment on the claims of defective design, failure to warn, and negligence, finding genuine issues of material fact. However, summary judgment was granted to the defendants regarding the breach of express warranty claims, which the plaintiff had abandoned.

Products LiabilityDefective DesignFailure to WarnSummary Judgment MotionExpert Witness AdmissibilityMobility Scooter AccidentNegligence ClaimsImplied Warranty ClaimsFederal Civil ProcedureDistrict Court Decision
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 02, 1996

Isnardi v. Genovese Drug Stores, Inc.

Thomas Isnardi was injured on September 13, 1993, after falling from a scaffold while performing demolition work on premises owned by Genovese Drug Stores, Inc. He sued Genovese and the general contractor, Robbins & Cowan, Inc., alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) for failure to provide adequate scaffolding. Robbins & Cowan, Inc. then filed a third-party action against Joe Demasco, Isnardi's employer. The Supreme Court granted Isnardi summary judgment on liability. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, denying the plaintiff's motion, as there was a factual dispute regarding whether Isnardi was a recalcitrant worker who refused to use a provided safe "pipe" scaffold, opting instead for an allegedly less stable "Baker" scaffold.

Personal InjuryScaffold FallDemolition WorkRecalcitrant Worker DefenseSummary JudgmentLabor LawConstruction AccidentThird-Party ActionIndemnificationAppellate Reversal
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Friot v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Plaintiff, an employee of a subcontractor, was injured on a construction site for Wal-Mart when a large mass of earthen fill dislodged, pinning him against a vehicle. He commenced an action against defendant Pike Company, Inc. (general contractor) and defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (owner), alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court initially dismissed the complaint but, upon reargument, reinstated the Labor Law § 200 claim while adhering to the dismissal of the others. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) claims, finding the latter inapplicable to ground-level accidents and the former not covering the type of elevation-related risk. However, it was determined that further discovery was needed regarding Pike's authority and control over the work site's safety to resolve the Labor Law § 200 claim.

Construction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentSubcontractorGeneral ContractorSite PreparationEarthen FillPersonal InjuryUnsafe Work EnvironmentAppellate Review
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Shook v. Blue Stores Corp.

Plaintiff Anthony Shook suffered injuries when a scaffolding collapsed at a construction site owned by Robert Schumer and Ruth Oxenberg. Shook and his wife sued Blue Stores Corporation and Barry Sirmon, alleging violations of Labor Law sections 200, 240, and 241. Blue Stores subsequently filed a third-party action against Schumer and Oxenberg, asserting a breach of their agreement to provide all necessary insurance coverage for the project. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs against Blue Stores/Sirmon and to Schumer/Oxenberg against Blue Stores, but denied Blue Stores' cross-motion. On appeal, the court found the insurance provision in the contract between Blue Stores and Schumer/Oxenberg to be ambiguous and that extrinsic evidence did not conclusively establish the parties' intent. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the portion of the Supreme Court's order that granted summary judgment to Schumer and Oxenberg, thereby denying their motion, and modified the order accordingly while affirming it as modified.

Scaffolding CollapseLabor Law 200Labor Law 240Labor Law 241Insurance ContractContract AmbiguitySummary Judgment AppealConstruction Site InjuryThird-Party ActionWorkers' Compensation
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 425 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational